~ A site for my creative writing endeavors, writing prompt responses, and experimentation.

Diane Rehm, Political Correctness, and Abraham Lincoln

I rarely write about politics because, well, because people stop thinking whenever anything they deem to be political is mentioned. One confounding factor in any political discussion is something called “political correctness.” This became apparent during a recent chance meeting with Diane Rehm.

For those who somehow have never heard of Diane Rehm, she hosted an eponymous radio show on NPR for 37 years. She retired from that a few years ago, but still does a podcast. She also, apparently, does small yacht cruises. That’s where I met her. She had brought along 40 other people, long-time listeners and participants of her program. Each was to read a book called The Soul of America: The Battle for Our Better Angels, by historian Jon Meacham, and they would discuss it. In addition to their private meetings, she hosted three public discussion events. That’s when I realized something important.

The overall premise, presumably of Meacham’s book, but clearly of Rehm and the more vocal participants from the audience, was that the current Trump regime was a danger to democracy. I was surprised to see this given the clientele of the cruise was rather noticeably the demographic usually most supportive of pro-rich, pro-business, “conservative” policies: older, wealthier, almost universally white. Rehm herself pointed out that there were no persons of color. Of the 216 passengers, all were white except for three Asian women; two of whom had lived in the US for 21-40+ years, one of whom had lived in Australia for a like amount of time; and one biracial (white American/Korean) man. Everyone that I spoke with either owned a company or was some high-end professional (e.g., doctor, lawyer, CEO). Without exception, everyone on board was financially secure and largely unaffected by most of the issues that affect the general middle class or working class poor (e.g., health care costs, educational access).* One was a former Governor of Colorado. These would seem not to be the kind of crowd often characterized as a bunch of bleeding heart liberals, and yet it appeared that many, if not most, of the participants thought we were in the midst of a constitutional crisis.

Therein lies the issue. After the second discussion event I had a chance to speak privately with Diane Rehm. I pointed out that the event discussion was almost exclusively one sided – those who believed the current administration was a threat to democracy. An occasional middle-ground voice would suggest there were problems with the government in a Reaganesque sense, but they were outnumbered by the “we have a crisis” voices. No conservative voices spoke up, although a few people got up and left the room. I don’t know if they were conservative, but in speaking with one group later I doubt they held the same opinion as Rehm. One couple I had spoken with after the first event clearly was “conservative” and agreed with Trump’s insistence that the border was porous, yet they apparently didn’t feel comfortable speaking up amidst a crowd in which they were the minority (or perhaps just not vocal). I asked Rehm how to broaden the discussion to include conservative as well as non-conservative voices.

Both Rehm and I had noticed a trend. Too often the discussion devolves into “I don’t want to have this discussion because we disagree.” Liberals will sometimes refuse to talk if their liberal views are challenged, but in my experience this is fairly limited (apparently liberals like to talk). The real problem is with conservatives, something I’ve noticed and confirms what congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein and others have asserted after much study.** Conservatives simply close up and hide rather than discuss views that are uncomfortable. Let me be clear here – I’m not talking about the rabid “Trumpers” who seem to be acting out some existential fear of “the other.” These people cannot be reasoned with because any fact, any reason, any idea that challenges their often psychopathic cultism is simply written off as part of the global conspiracy against them. I experienced this psychopathy first hand. Two people whom I thought I knew summarily cut off any contact with me as soon as I challenged a “fact” they offered that wasn’t true. Unfriended in a moment. One even spewed out “I guess you’re just smarter than me” and unfriended me. These are not merely “Facebook friends”; these are people I knew and had personal relationships with in real life. Now, neither will talk to me even though the “fact” they offered is still non-factual and I was willing to allow them their point just to keep the conversation going. They were afraid. Worse, I think they deep down inside knew their “fact” was false, but admitting it would mean admitting weakness or intellectual dishonesty. I’m certainly willing to re-friend both people, and in fact will always cherish the friendships we had together, but I’m doubtful that either will ever be honest with themselves enough to make the effort. The ball, as they say, is in their court.

No, what I’m talking about the kind of conservatives on this cruise. Confident, educated, successful, financially secure, capable of reasoned discussion. But yet they didn’t speak up. Why? Was it because they felt outnumbered by a “liberal audience”? Given the demographics, I suspect there were many more “conservatives” than “liberals” in attendance, but most of the input was made by people who agreed with Rehm that we were in a crisis. [Or perhaps, understanding we are in a crisis is not “liberal” after all. Maybe it’s just honest analysis.***] Did they not want to speak up because they couldn’t defend their views? Or because they “didn’t want a fight”? Or, well, I don’t know why. Rehm certainly made an effort to have voices heard, yet one view remained silent.

This is where political correctness comes into play. Usually we hear the term used to blast “liberals” for complaining about what language is allowed or not allowed. Old racial descriptions are now considered racial slurs, thus liberals are to blame. In reality, they were always racial slurs. The only difference is that now the people that are the target of those slurs are speaking up for themselves and society as a whole has deemed racism to be repugnant. Societal sensitivities change, but mostly what we consider appropriate vs inappropriate comes from empowering those who were previously powerless, which tends to irritate those who once owned all the power.

But there is a another form of political correctness that actually reflects the opposite of the traditional “political correctness” definition. People don’t want to defend their views. They feel they can just say what they think without ramification. They feel that the First Amendment of the Constitution protects their “right to free speech.” While generally true, we do have exceptions, with “yelling fire in the theater” or “hate speech” being the most obvious. We often think that our views are sacrosanct because they are our views. Challenging our views (especially with facts we prefer not to admit) is seen as an attack on our person. It’s politically correct, we think without using that terminology, to have our views remain unchallenged.

Needless to say, that’s not honest. Our views must be informed based on fact or they are challengeable. If the facts prove our view wrong, then that view is wrong. It isn’t right because we “have a right to our own opinion.” If I hold a belief that is not supported by fact, and indeed disproved by fact, then that belief is wrong and I have an obligation to alter my false belief.

One private conversation I had with someone is perhaps an example of how to move forward. He offered a view that I disagreed with. Rather than say he was wrong, I asked him why he thought that way. He offered a “fact” that didn’t sound like a fact to me (and since then I have been unable to find any support for it whatsoever), but again rather than tell him he was wrong I continued to query to find out what was driving his view. I thought that even if his “fact” was indeed fact, the conclusion he drew from it seemed inconsistent with the “fact” pattern, and ignored other known facts that would bring his conclusion into question. I didn’t tell him this because I knew from experience it likely would end the conversation. Meanwhile, I acknowledged other points he made that I did agree with, at least to some extent, or where I acknowledged the legitimate fact he provided, and offered some additional facts and views to stimulate further thinking on his part (and mine). I also worked hard to avoid offering points or “facts” I wasn’t sure I had the information to support. I constrained myself from simply offering my contrary point of view, especially since we got into a topic he had more experience with than did I. But mostly, I listened. And by listened, I mean actively listened, asking questions to clarify and to draw out more information. My goal was to try to understand his view better. In the end, the conversation was too short to resolve the issue, either in agreement or disagreement or even a path forward to solve the problem he described. Since then, we engaged in a short email exchange and he suggested further reading, which I’m in the process of following up on (along with the Jon Meacham book that started this whole discussion). I’m hoping we have a chance to continue the conversation.

My point here is two-fold. First, the Diane Rehm public discussion events were very much needed and would be a good template for more widespread public discourse. I would encourage working harder to draw out more than one viewpoint, but acknowledge that this is difficult for the reasons described above. I also realize this is a discussion that must take place on a nationwide scale and for an extended period of time, periodically over many years. For this to happen we need the “leadership” to make it happen, something that seems unlikely in the current political and social atmosphere.

Second, we must all individually make an effort to listen what other people are saying. I realize that expecting reasoned discourse from cult-like followers is likely impossible, but even these folks – perhaps especially these folks – will follow wherever the informed crowd eventually leads. Which puts the onus on the rest of us to combine active listening with reasoned discourse with those around us. That doesn’t just mean a boat full of wealthy and successful white folk, it means talking to your family and your neighbors no matter what demographic(s) that gets pigeonholed into. It means listening to find out why they believe what they believe. It means not focusing on Democratic vs Republican or White vs Black or Christian vs Muslim or Rich vs Poor. Rather it means talking to whomever is in your immediate orbit. If you have a diverse orbit, all the better. But reasonable evangelical Christians have as much responsibility in discourse with the most rabid evangelical Christians as do reasonable Muslims with extremist Muslims. We each have our influence zones. Each of us must engage in rationale discourse within those zones. The more we can have conversations with a greater diversity of input, the better; but even if we can’t, we have an obligation to shun political correctness and have important conversations with those around us.

Abraham Lincoln, in his 1838 Lyceum Address, noted that “reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason” was what our nation needed for the future, not merely the passion that led to our founding.

Clearly today our passions have often overwhelmed our ability to reason. Lincoln also is the source for another quote that we might consider in these times:

The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise – with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

Since both parties today embrace the mantle of Abraham Lincoln, perhaps we should heed his words.

****************************

*I may be an exception. As a poor, starving writer I have health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act (aka, Obamacare); otherwise it would be functionally unaffordable.

**I consider myself an Independent. Besides thinking that labels are lazy and a cop-out, I find that the terms “liberal” and “conservative” often don’t mean what either their proponents or opponents think they mean. Therefore, I stick to the philosophy I used throughout my scientific consulting career – put all the options on the table and find one, or a mix, that will resolve the issue.

***There could also be some self-selection bias going on here. Since 20% of the passengers were part of Diane Rehm’s entourage, it’s likely that those people were ones who generally agreed with Rehm’s point of view. That, however, doesn’t count the other 80%, who were not involved in her show and likely didn’t even know she would be aboard (e.g., like myself).

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Post navigation

13 thoughts on “Diane Rehm, Political Correctness, and Abraham Lincoln”

Excellent piece.
Recently I have found that there are extremists on both ends of the spectrum. Judgments cast by “liberals” against other liberals because they supported Bernie and were therefore responsible for the current mess. Even the situation in which Sarah Sanders was tossed from the restaurant brought them no end of glee, and they could not entertain that perhaps this was not a rational approach.
As you pointed out, reason–being rational–seems to be lost. Individuals need to be open to having the discussions you propose. However, the first line of defense lately seems to be: defensiveness. I’m not certain how that barrier can be crossed.

Thank you. You raise some interesting points. I agree that there is an extremist liberal wing, though I’m not sure I would describe quite the way you did. Overall I think the extremist liberals are still outliers and probably should remain so, at least in the Democratic party. In contrast, the most extreme extremists divorced from any kind of reality have taken over the Republican party to the point where the Republican leadership is deathly afraid of standing up to them with any kind of rational governance. This isn’t just my opinion, this is the opinion of people who analyze social and political trends (e.g., the Mann and Ornstein I mention in the article).

I’m ambivalent about the running people out of restaurants idea. There is the first amendment right to speak your mind, but there is also common decency and harassment. That said, wouldn’t it be not just okay but an obligation to run chanting Nazis or KKK (or obnoxious smokers) out of a restaurant? Sanders wasn’t any of these, of course, but she does actively lie and cover up Trump’s lies to the point of creating a hostile atmosphere against the media and others Trump finds threatening. That could get people killed and is reminiscent of brutal totalitarian states, not the USA. Still, I’m not a violent person, nor an activist, so I would never consider being so obnoxious or threatening as to cause someone to leave a restaurant, so overall I think it’s not a reasonable action.

Finally, I agree that the first reaction of virtually all of us is defensiveness. I saw that in the two friends who unceremoniously dumped me. My experiences on the boat helped me see that I need to be more open to discussion, at least with people who are willing to have an honest discussion. We’ll see how that works out.

I think repressed biases often emerge in stressful times and make a lot of things difficult. That is perhaps cryptic, but it refers to the last several decades. My elder extended family in the southern appalachians certainly behave that way.

It is perhaps easy to talk about issues one at a time, but most often a jumble emerges. So a lot of patience is key, since most folks really don’t want to learn. It is much simpler to react; and many of our leaders are just folks who have gotten lucky reacting throughout life.

With most kids I find it much easier. They are used to learning, well a larger fraction is.

I don’t know from where to draw hope, except from the fact that many folks do like to solve problems rather than just paint over them.

Thanks, estebang. Perhaps we do fall back on our innate (or actually, learned) biases in times of stress, and it seems we’re in a constant state of stress these days. You raise a good point about the issues getting conflated into a jumble. One person I spoke to on the yacht started by discussing our “porous borders” but during the discussion I came to believe he was more worried about drug trafficking, yet conflating the two.

As for patience, I’m not known for such a trait, though ironically I was considered the patient one back on Gather. It’s like politics. My liberal friends think I’m too conservative and my conservative friends think I’m too liberal. Which is why I don’t think either label has any actual meaning.

I’ll have to think about your point that “it is much simpler to react, and many of our leaders are just folks who have gotten lucky reacting throughout life.” I do agree that most of us tend to react to events (or as Lincoln said “I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me”). I can safely say that I’ve reacted – perhaps the word is adapted – throughout life, which is how you keep ahead of the wave (maybe “Lightness Traveling” can appreciate the attempted surfing metaphor). The essence of Darwinism is not “the strong survive” but “those who can adapt survive.” So it’s not a bad thing, though I do understand your meaning.

We clearly need more folks that like to solve problems rather than paint over them. Unfortunately, we had that choice in 2016 and we as American voters failed the test.

Well said, David. My post, “Hell” addresses exactly this issue from within the “conservative” perspective. My apologies for the lengthy comment…

Ironically, just this morning I was listening to a discussion between the conservative NY Times columnist, David Brooks. and Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund regarding Ifill’s disagreement with something Brooks’ proposed in a recent article he wrote. The frank but absolutely civil and respectful tone conveyed by both of these incredibly intelligent and perceptive human beings struck me as a truly refreshing if not hopeful counterpoint to most of the political “discussions” I’ve witnessed of late. It really encouraged trying to actually hear what was being said. And as with most such debates, it revealed some curious shades of grays.

I think there’s simply much instinctive human behavior associated with politics (and other things). There seems to an innate desire to settle into “certainties”, probably as an evolutionarily selected process to free-up cognitive faculties. Unfortunately, it means that once we fixate upon a “truth”, we tend to resist questioning it.

I don’t generally advertise my demographics. However, you may have figured out the nature of the place in which I choose to reside in the US. You might also have picked up that I have, at times, been somewhat politically active with regard to pragmatic versus ideological conservatism.

Most of the people that I know who fall into the “conservative” camp (and not all wealthy, older White males do), are of the pragmatic variety. Conservatism in the US, however, has been overshadowed by the ideologists, many of whom (certainly not all) derive their perspectives from iconic representations of “America”. These are powerful images, generating very visceral certainties that are difficult to overcome.

Nearby is a small-town where the faces of more than a dozen very young men and women killed or maimed in recent wars hang from banners. The people there can see only heroism in those faces, and perhaps that’s their right. From his recent article, David Brooks apparently thinks so. Regardless, when I look at them, I see mostly a terrible failure of our society to respect the commitments made by those individuals. Which perspective is correct, and to what degree? More difficult, how is it possible to discuss something with such powerful emotional leverage rationally?

Pragmatic conservatism still exists, but its voice is being drown out by the current deluge of ideological conservatism. This makes it extraordinarily difficult for even the most moderate of conservatives to credibly join into discussions, since they also have to expend energies distancing themselves from the ideologically extreme perspectives that demand the most attention. And as for the ideologists in the crowd, they may need to stick to the hero-worship for reasons of their own. And we may simply need to accept that.

And for whatever it’s worth, I also don’t see Diane Rehm as necessarily the most credibly neutral figure in facilitating such a discussion. I can imagine that even a fairly moderately conservative position might not see much value in bothering with addressing the perspective front-loaded through Jon Meacham’s book if he or she also sees already fixated perspectives in the opposing views. Doesn’t quite rise to the level of Judy Woodruff’s hosting of Brooks and Ifill, which is the kind of thing I’d like to see more often.

Thanks. I remember our discussion in the comments on your “Hell” post fondly. I wish we/I had more time to have actual discussions with people. I think that is part of the problem. Maybe it’s our video game attention span. I can certainly relate to having a wandering attention (or deficit) and it seems most of the country has been trained not to think deeply. Perhaps it’s the pace of life and the sheer amount of stimuli bombarding us constantly.

Which is why the Brooks/Ifill discussion is so rare. The usual media event is to have two extreme views scream their practiced points at each other for a few minutes, then go to a commercial break (or conversely, present one single propaganda-based view). I recently was interviewed with a colleague by Annabel Park, the founder of the Coffee Party (essentially, an anti-tea party, where the idea was to have civil conversations). Broadcast on FB live, it was supposed to run 20 minutes but went on for 2 hours and 20 minutes and received over 11,000 views last I checked. Bob and I didn’t really hold opposing views per se, but we did have a civil conversation that delved into the details of a lot of issues, all calmly presented and fact based. We addressed several comments from viewers, including disagreeing with some characterizations and expanding on others. I enjoyed it immensely. We need more of that. But will people take the time to participate?

Your discussion of conservatism deserves a much greater time and space than we can manage here, but I’ll offer a few thoughts. Personally, I think conservatism is dead, at least as practiced by the majority of Americans. Instead we have “conservatism,” which is merely an excuse for racism, bigotry, and dishonesty. I’ll grant that many “conservatives” think they are conservative, but that reflects their self-dishonesty more than anything else. In the language you used, these are ideologists. I realize that we all undergo a certain amount of self-deception, but these people have lost any pretense of being honest, either with themselves or others. I’m at a loss how to handle a conversation with someone who denies basic facts and espouses blatant falsehoods and conspiracy idiocy as “truth.” I struggle with this mightily.

I’d like to hear more about your perspective on the war banners. Without knowing the details, it seems to me that such banners are more about making the public feel good (or at least emotionally connected) rather than honoring the people depicted. Maybe it’s like funerals – they are for the living, the dead never seem to say they care.

I agree with you about the Diane Rehm event. She had a definite perspective and most of the people who spoke up agreed with her. I haven’t read the book (but plan to) but I have to assume based on her presentation that her view reflected the perspective of the book. So yes, it does seem like the perspective was frontloaded, and that in itself could be why conservative voices chose not to speak up. In fact, that is why I chose to speak to her. I felt the presentation needed to have both perspectives (or multiple perspectives) and despite her giving the opportunity for the other side, the discussion was predominantly one-sided. I had hoped that with her experience interviewing hundreds (thousands?) of people she would be able to draw out other views. Unfortunately, I was very late getting to the last session, which in any case ended up being focused mostly on her impromptu interview of the former Governor that was surreptitiously on board. Based on your description, the Brooks/Ifill discussion sounds like an even better template. I hope it had wide distribution.

Thank you for the reply, but I hope you don’t think I’m racist, bigoted or dishonest. Unfortunately, the conversations are indeed being led by a racist nationalist with Dunning–Kruger effect tendencies. But that’s exactly my point, that we have to work past the assumptions that the same drives are behind every “conservative” opinion in order to have civil and truly objective conversations about difficult questions, such as the place of race in America, or how we want our borders to function, or the institutionalization of government inefficiency and corruption.

Wealth also doesn’t necessarily equate with greed. Sometimes it’s just the product of hard work, commitment to a productive idea, sacrifice, or maybe just good luck. Personally, I’d like to see a country that’s more egalitarian and meritocratic, but I truly don’t believe that can be accomplished without a common ethic of personal responsibility. “Tax the rich, feed the poor, ‘Till there are no rich no more.” Fine… but then what?

I think that the summer that my brother and I learned about professional wrestling was around the time that the song “I’d Love to Change the World” came out.

It is useful to keep in mind how one feels when a closely held belief is disrupted or new data that conflicts with old is added to the mix. Some births are easy, but most are not.

I suppose it is important for any society to have moving or adjustable definitions of material and intellectual poverty and some coping mechanisms just to keep society from deteriorating.

As for the political terms, there does not appear to be much use in them without having some reference points. But it is instructive to remember that George Wallace was popular about the same time as the song above.

Of course I don’t think those things about you, as you’ve shown in your posts and comments. And of course not all Republicans are racist, bigoted, or dishonest. But, and this is a big but, the Republican party has integrated racism, bigotry, and dishonesty into its platform. It has intentionally targeted the very people that are now the biggest supporters of Trump, all while lying about everything. There is a reason the party refuses to stand up to Trump – they need the racists, bigots, and delusionals to vote for them (plus the gerrymandering and voter suppression) or they would never win. They stopped being a legitimate political party long ago. The corollary to this is that honest Republicans and honest conservatives have an obligation to speak out. They haven’t. People like Jeff Flake spoke out mildly and it killed his reelection chances. Only since he decided to quit has he been truly outspoken. That says a lot about the Republican party.

But the Republican party does have some good people too. I would like to see more of them stand up for America rather than hide from their own voters. It would be nice if Republican leadership would start being honest, but clearly that isn’t going to happen until the party is wiped out at the polls and loses control of Congress, if the American people have the guts to do what’s right.

And of course the Democrats have some deplorable people too, but they are individuals, not the party platform. Sure, the parties used to be switched in this regard, but that’s not the present case. Anyway. Enough of that.

I do agree that different factors drive different conservatives (and liberals, for that matter). I’m driven by the need to deal with climate change and the need for honesty from candidates and their political parties so that we can find solutions to real issues. Others are driven by their pro-life vs pro-choice views, race relations, economics, fear, what their evangelical preacher screams. But your point about “truly objective conversations,” while working best at the individual or small group level, really needs to happen at a national (and sometimes global) level. That’s hard to do when the main vectors for conversation (political parties, White House) are thoroughly corrupted by dishonesty. People don’t like change; it’s even harder when they are being fed lies on every issue. Every issue. I long for the ability to have a substantive conversation. That’s hard to do when people deny basic facts as some sort of conspiracy. People are dying because of the dishonesty being spread by Fox News and similar propaganda outlets.

I agree entirely with your last paragraph, and yet question its premises. True, not all rich people are greedy. Bill Gates and the like have spent billions trying to help others. Some got rich through hard work and all the things you mention. But some are greedy. More importantly, some believe their financial achievement entitles them to be given more money as a reward. The tax code is rife with bonuses to rich people and corporations. Originally designed (or at least sold) as incentives to create business and jobs and raise salaries, those provisions and the more insidious ones added are now ways for the very rich to avoid putting money back into the economy; hoarding, as it were. The recent tax law Republicans put into place is a perfect example. The rich and corporations got huge benefits, and those were made permanent. Companies then used nearly all that money to 1) give huge paychecks to CEOs and officers and Board, and 2) buy back stocks, thus artificially inflating stock prices. Virtually none of that money went to create jobs or improve the pay of hourly workers. Meanwhile, the small tax breaks that went to workers and middle class were put on a clock to expire. So the rich and corporations get huge permanent benefits while the vast majority of Americans get small temporary benefits. And then those small benefits are completely wiped out by the increase in the inflation rate and further Republican attacks on other general benefit programs, social security, Medicare. All because the Republican party created a 1.5 trillion dollar additional deficit for no purpose or economic benefit.

Which gets to the crux of your comment, I think. I think the “ethic of personal responsibility,” like the Republican party’s mantras of “fiscal responsibility” and “family values,” is a canard without much support. Sure, there are “welfare queens,” but they are rare. If anything, corporations are the welfare queens of today, getting tax break after tax break and special incentives that too often go to line the CEO pockets and prop up the stock prices rather than create jobs or build the economy. There’s a reason why CEO to Worker pay ratios went from 20:1 to 300+:1 and more. But that’s an aside. I’m not sure you can argue that someone working three part time jobs and still not able to pay for basic necessities, never mind sending their kids to a good school, is not taking personal responsibility. Virtually everyone works hard to feed their kids and build a life. For many, that isn’t enough. There are a lot of reasons for that, some of which can be addressed through policy (e.g., job training and education, both of which Republicans have fought against). But some of it is systemic. Racism, discrimination of other sorts (religious, LGBTQ, gender etc.), and other systemic factors present in our society – a society that just put Donald Trump in the White House – put some people in a hole to start their lives, then keep dumping more dirt on top of them as they try to climb their way out. Personal responsibility is certainly a factor, sometimes the driving factor, but that doesn’t mean we can ignore the other, often more important, factors.

I’m puzzled by your “Tax the rich, feed the poor, ‘Till there are no more rich no more.” Have you seen this happen? Where? The rich are doing quite well. The vast majority of the economic benefit of the recovery under Obama and now Trump has gone to the very rich. Corporations are richer than ever before. The stock market is soaring. Anyone rich enough to own significant amounts of stocks is doing well. Taxes on most of the income of the rich is either non-existent or at a 15% investment rate, further reduced by the many tax benefits written into the code. The rich aren’t hurting. There isn’t much danger of them disappearing.

Nor should they, of course. Other than the far left, which is still a fringe of the Democratic party no matter how much they like to think otherwise, no one is suggesting we tax the rich out of existence. The proposals all are directed not at taxing the rich excessively, but taxing the rich fairly. Tax incentives used to mean giving tax breaks to people who build factories that employ workers, so everyone gains. That’s not how it works any more. Those tax incentives, i.e., ways to avoid paying taxes or paying small rates, are mostly for pushing paper around these days. It simply makes the rich richer but has very little effect on the economy (with the exception of those that loan money to small businesses). I think the goal of those who want to change the tax code is to make it fairer to all Americans, not just a benefit to the rich. The new tax law actually removes some of the benefit to the middle class while transferring that benefit to the rich. Again, the rich aren’t going to be hurting in any reasonable scenario.

I think the biggest problem in all this is that the Republican party has institutionalized dishonesty (again, I’m not giving the Democratic party a pass, but all rational analysts point the finger at the Republicans). Two quick examples of their dishonesty. Obamacare is a Republican-based insurance program. Democrats wanted single payer (government run), Obama wanted a public option (people could choose a govt plan or stick with private insurance, but they settled on the plans Republicans had been pushing – market based, private insurance company, require everyone to have insurance (so that insurance companies could remain profitable). Obama managed to get provisions keeping insurance companies from throwing people out of the plans for using them. Obamacare is what the Republican party would propose if they cared about 40 million people who can’t afford insurance or were blocked from it. And yet they fought their own plan. Similarly, the Cap-and-Trade bill to deal with climate change was Republican program. Democrats wanted a Carbon Tax. When they agreed to cap-and-trade, the Republican market-based economic model, the Republicans suddenly decided they were against their own proposal because Obama was for it. There are many more examples of Republican dishonesty, not to mention their disgraceful refusal to have a hearing for Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, their excessive gerrymandering, their voter suppression efforts, and their apparent cozying up to (or at least willingly accepting) Russian interference.

Sorry, I got carried away. This is a discussion much better done interactively and in person. My personal belief at this point is that the Republican party has gone Anti-American. That sounds hyperbolic but the points I made above, and more, strongly support such a contention. I’m not all that enamored with the Democratic party either, but at least I don’t see them as being against American principles. Obama (and Bill Clinton) was better for long-term business sustainability than Reagan, Bush, or likely Trump. We need a strong Republican party to counter some of the really dumb ideas of the Democrats, but that party has to be an honest one.

I think we all have an obligation to demand honesty. We can have different views on how to address issues, but we can’t deny facts because it makes our position look bad. We can’t lie to the populace in every breath. We cannot deny basic American principles just because it keeps “our” party in power. I don’t see the Republican party standing up for America or for honesty. Indeed, the party leadership is doing the opposite, and doing so cynically just to keep in power while they lie to the very people that are voting for them. Why? The John C. Calhoun strategy is a large part of it, but there is also the economic dishonesty that is pervasive in the Republican platform.

It is my way to be willing to speak reasonably to most folks (and speaking reasonably involves listening). I will to a point until I am convinced they don’t care what I’m saying and then I’ll cut line. I don’t have time for that and will accomplish nothing (in my opinion). I will not fail to challenge fallacious information because that’s how it remains part of discourse. When my aunt (who I love and get along with) told me that renewable energy (electric companies) charged far more for electricity, I did a search on her address for electric companies: the three cheapest were all 100% renewable.

When my friend told me that most abortions happen late in pregnancy, I was able to send her statistics to show her that that wasn’t wrong.

In both cases, these people are my friends and close with me because they don’t expect me to be less than honest and I don’t expect them to be either. We don’t always agree, often don’t, but we respect each other enough to be honest. I don’t know if what I sent them changed their minds. but they were willing to hear it.

I no longer waste my time with people unwilling to hear. Not because they’re not people but because I don’t know how to cure the problem. Indulging misinformation does not, I think, seem to be the right tactic.

But we all have to do the best we can. You use what works best for you and I shall do the same. I write books where I present my views as part of the story, where people can see for themselves what I mean. In some ways, I think that’s the best way to get my opinions across and for people to think about it.

As for changing my views, well, I’ve done it and will do it again. When someone shows me a new perspective that lets me see things differently, I DO see things differently. When someone shows me data that refutes what I thought was true, I adjust my views accordingly. People say humanities help with critical thinking but I think the scientific method has worked best for me. I’m not infallible. I want to be corrected if I’m wrong.

But my opinions will always work to being the most tolerant, the most kind, the most compassionate person I can be. Because that’s the person I want to be. I’ll keep an open mind but not so open my brain falls out.

One line you wrote jumps out at me: “We don’t always agree, often don’t, but we respect each other enough to be honest.”

There is the crux of the matter, and why I won’t waste time with “Trumpers” (yes, I’m being lazy by using a label after I wrote above that I don’t like labels, but I can’t think of a better shorthand). These people activity disdain fact. There is no having any kind of worthwhile conversation with them. I saw, and see, a lot of them in climate denial, which was Trumpism before Trump with respect to the shear refusal to accept any fact that calls their conspiracy theory into question. That’s why I don’t waste much time on the FB climate change groups as I used to, and when I do, it’s more to convince other pro-science people to stop giving deniers a forum by arguing with them. Unfortunately, it’s human nature for us to correct people who are wrong, which just plays into their strategy and/or psychoses.

I’m constantly reminding myself not to assume I have everything right. Even in my responses to comments above I checked myself a few times, yet I probably could be criticized for not listening more to other views. It’s hard to listen, even when you’re typing.

I think about my two careers. Science is essentially objective, yet there is some subjective interpretation of the data in some respects. The fuzzier the data, the more subjectiveness. Historians are similar in that we collect facts based on written records, but again there is some subjective interpretation. That’s why we publish and spend time in scientific and historian conferences discussing the data. Add into this career focus my basic personality quirks (long story), most of which have resulted in me wanting to find order in the chaos. Thus, no matter how much I listen I still find it terribly difficult to understand people who dismiss fact and/or are dishonest in their analysis of reality. I can handle differences of opinion and being wrong – I’ve certainly been wrong quite a bit in my life. And while I might not always like being proven wrong, I’d rather be corrected than continue to be wrong. [There’s a Lincoln quote for that too.] What I can’t handle is the twisting of “facts” and fantasy to buttress a position completely belied by reality, especially when that position is racist or bigoted.

I like your last paragraph. Perhaps we all should focus on being compassionate of our fellow men and women (and children). For the reasons discussed above, that’s not always easy. Maybe if we recognize our own fallibility we’ll be more cognizant, and empathetic, of others. That is, as long as they (and we) try to be honest with ourselves and with others.